Best defensemen

[JQK]

6 Scott Stevens. Would have worked in 1950, not in the modern age. None of them is a power play quarterback, none can lead a rush (though your own team is pretty much making that extinct.), none could turn a game around. THAT is the power of the offensive defenseman.

And anyone who thinks that Defensemen are ONLY there for hitting people is NOT a true hockey fan. Or maybe a true hockey fan in 1950.

PS What you say does follow you.

Things said regarding sports and regarding politics should not be intertwined. I do not hold your extreme anti-americanisim against your sports opinions, Habs. If you can't seperate politics from sports, i feel sorry for you. Maybe if you mature a bit.

Sorry JQK, but that's what it sounds like to me.

Those were comments made in denfense of the "What you says follows you", in which he ment my political statements should somehow carry over to my sports opinions. I never said he brought up politics, i said he should sperate my political statements and my sports opinions.

[jkrdevil]

Like I said before, Let's stop the bickering.

[habsfannova]

wow, I posted this when Stevens broke the record for most games played by a defensemen, and who you think should start on defense of an all-time nhl team. Let's stop the bickering and keep this on topic.

Habs, personally I'm not a fan of wide open, soft European play. I think hitting is and should stay an important part of Hockey. Stevens can be a threat from the point to score, he has a pretty hard shot. He is an important part of the Devils power-play (which is much improved this year).

The 80's are over. And it was an aberration. It was a time-period that featured some of the worst goaltending in history.

Remember this, offense might win some games, but defense wins championships. And when it comes to playing defense Stevens is up there with the greats.

hehe, you are an NJ fan, arent' you?

I'm just playin' with ya, Hockey is according to personal preference, and seems to go with the favourite team. Many Leaf fans think the golden age is the 60's, Habs fans any age but now, etc.

If you were old enough to go through the 80's, you would realize that goalies were good, but had to be AROBATIC. That made much nicer saves than just lining up the body against the puck with huge-ass pads.

I don't like Lacrosse level scoring, but I like a bit of open. The best mixture was the early 90's. Great goalies, great cehcking, and mostly rushes.

Just don't call the 1980's an Aberation. VERY strong word choice....

[jkrdevil]

I don't like the lay down huge pad goalies either. A goaltender can be successful are an athletic goalie. Look at the Devils' goalie, Martin Broduer. He is not a butterfly goalie, and he is the best in the world currently. But that's getting off-topic.

Personally, I feel the game is fine now. The NHL's problem is they have terrible pr. First, it doesn't help when you have a non-hockey person in charge of hockey. The NHL is listening to dumbass reporters who have never seen a hockey game, but feel they must bash it because they understand it.

Youth Hockey is growing which means more fans in the  furture, and the future should be where the NHL should be looking to.

[CC97]

We're jumping off-topic like mad on this...

The problem may be that hockey could be too fast for the majority of American sports fans, the U.S. is a country traditionally of slow-paced sports... their two biggest sports are some of the slowest sports out there: baseball, football, throw in golf's large following, and the recent interest in soccer, and I've made my point.   Mind you, basketball's a fast sport, but nowhere near hockey-fast.

How do you solve the NHL's problem in the U.S.?   Pull out of a lot of markets, it's way too saturated down there, a lot of the sun belt teams especially, it's embarassing to the game to be playing in half-empty arenas every night in Florida, Phoenix, and Carolina.   Heck, even Boston and New Jersey don't draw well, and they're both some of the top teams in the league.

The Pittsburgh Penguins will not survive past 2006, let's start with them and go nuts eliminating these deadweight teams.  Knock off the Islanders, and get a new arena in Newark for New Jersey fast!  There's no need to have teams in Miami, Atlanta, Nashville, Raleigh, Tampa, Phoenix, or Anaheim... why do these teams exist?  Hockey interest in Buffalo is incredibly low, either take them out, or (gasp) Boston (if their fans wont support them now, they never will).

That's ten teams gone... a 20-team league.  That reduces the league by 250 players, and 20 goaltenders.

This is how you make hockey exciting again.  Every team is full of talent.  Every arena is full of fans.

Revive the old 4-division format with the old conferences and divisions, play the old-format playoffs (the one used until 92/93).

I would love to see hockey return to areas like Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford, but a 20-team league is best, and I feel of the 20-teams I left alone they deserve to keep their teams (this is assuming devils fans would go to games in a closer arena)

My Alignments:

Wales/Adams

****

Columbus

Detroit

Montreal

Ottawa

Toronto

Wales/Patrick

****

Boston

New Jersey

New York

Philadelphia

Washington

Campbell/Norris

****

Calgary

Chicago

Edmonton

Minnesota

Vancouver

Campbell/Smythe

****

Colorado

Dallas

Los Angeles

St Louis

San Jose

Oooooooh boy that's good hockey!

[jrh31584]

A little attendance analysis.  Teams whose attendance rank this year is lower than their average over the last 3 years are in italics, higher in bold.  Their rank this year is in parentheses:

Atlantic

NY Rangers (7)

Philadelphia (9)

NY Islanders (23)

New Jersey (25)

Pittsburgh (28)

Northeast

Toronto (2)

Montreal (13)

Ottawa (14)

Boston (20)

Buffalo (21)

Southeast

Tampa Bay (19)

Washington (22)

Atlanta (24)

Florida (26)

Carolina (30)

Central

Detroit (4)

St. Louis (11)

Columbus (12)

Nashville (27)

Chicago (29)

Northwest

Minnesota (1)

Vancouver (3)

Colorado (5)

Edmonton (8)

Calgary (15)

Pacific

Dallas (6)

Los Angeles (10)

San Jose (16)

Phoenix (17)

Anaheim (18)

[CC97]

Hey, not bad off the top of my head... I guess I only missed Washington.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't have a problem with the defensive style that Stevens plays (I don't like his dirty hits). Offensive Dmen like Leetch (not a top 10 guy, just an O Dman that came to my head) are important too. Then, throw in a great mix like MacInnis.

[-kj]

The great defensemen do both, in my opinion. Sure, the stay-at-home guy is solid defensively, but a guy that can do that plus help generate some offense is that much more valuable. I don't remember Orr enough to speak of his defensive abilities, but the player in modern times that pops into my head to fill that role is Ray Bourque. Al MacInnis is also a similar player, though I would have to place Bourque in front of him.

As for Stevens' hits being "dirty," I can't agree with that. Everyone knows you don't put your head down playing the puck at center ice. The hits were within the rules and within the spirit of the game. Hockey is a great combination of grace and grit, and should always remain that way. I don't completely shun the so-called-"European" game, with its crisp passing and offensive movement, but the game of hockey would be lacking if it didn't require some intestinal fortitude.

That's why I can't understand the complaints about the style of play in the NHL. Every game I go to or see on TV, I see a lot of plays that make me gasp in amazement--unbelievable goals, tape-to-tape passes, speedy skaters, smart defensive coverage, acrobatic saves, hits that make me cringe in empathy, and more. How can that be bad?

[habsfannova]

The great defensemen do both, in my opinion. Sure, the stay-at-home guy is solid defensively, but a guy that can do that plus help generate some offense is that much more valuable. I don't remember Orr enough to speak of his defensive abilities, but the player in modern times that pops into my head to fill that role is Ray Bourque. Al MacInnis is also a similar player, though I would have to place Bourque in front of him.

As for Stevens' hits being "dirty," I can't agree with that. Everyone knows you don't put your head down playing the puck at center ice. The hits were within the rules and within the spirit of the game. Hockey is a great combination of grace and grit, and should always remain that way. I don't completely shun the so-called-"European" game, with its crisp passing and offensive movement, but the game of hockey would be lacking if it didn't require some intestinal fortitude.

That's why I can't understand the complaints about the style of play in the NHL. Every game I go to or see on TV, I see a lot of plays that make me gasp in amazement--unbelievable goals, tape-to-tape passes, speedy skaters, smart defensive coverage, acrobatic saves, hits that make me cringe in empathy, and more. How can that be bad?

Because it used to be better.

[JQK]

The NHL needs to cut teams. Will it be the only thing they need to do to fix things? No, but it will be a great start. They need to cut salaries, they need to market the game better, andthey have to find a way to have the game translate well to TV. (that running "BoardCam" from the Heritage game was a pretty sharp innovation.. i'd like to see that tried out on a regular basis by all networks showing hockey)

THe play of the game is alot better, fasterm than it ever has been before. What the NHL lacks is a definitive, marketable superstar on the level of a Gretzky. He was the NHL for so long, that when he left... there was a vaccume that couldn't be filled. The NBA suffered this when Jordan retired (the second time, not the most recent time). If the NHL cut teams, markets the game better, does a better job with the TV, and makes itself a superstar, things can improve.. but that's alooooooot to ask for.....

[JQK]

Yes we can!  

(P.S. i like that realignment. Brings some tradition back...)

[yh]

In order for the NHL to cut teams it's going to have to break the union. Even if the league only contracts four teams out, you're talking about a 12.5% cut in the number of NHL players. The NHLPA isn't going to stand pat to let that many of their members lose their jobs. Granted, the guys who will wind up out of work are going to be guys that probably shouldn't be on NHL rosters anyway (if you subscribe to the theory that the league is very watered-down), but still union solidarity is union solidarity and unless the league can devise some kind of realistic and affordable severance package, there would be a strike.

Regarding the expansion and Sun Belt migration issue, I think the problem comes from the fact that the NHL made the erroneous presumption that the success of minor league hockey in places like Phoenix, Texas and the Southeast US meant that those areas would be fertile NHL markets. What they didn't understand was that minor league hockey succeeded in those areas because of cheap ticket prices and corporate sponsors who had enough money to pay for dasherboard ads or perhaps even a spot on the ice, but who wouldn't necessarily pony up six figures a year for a luxury suite and $130.00 a pop rinkside seats. There's a big difference between getting folks to pay $15.00 tops pack a 7,000 seat rink on a Friday or Saturday night or even an occasional weeknight and trying to sell 15,000 season tickets at an average price of $55.00 per game and having less than half of the games scheduled on a weekend night.

Oh, and best blueliners?  Bobby Orr for sure (and he did his best work on crappy knees!).  As for a linemate, I think it's a tossup among the generations with strong arguments for Eddie Shore, Doug Harvey, Scott Stevens and Al MacInnis.

[-kj]

Because it used to be better.

Can you expand on that?  "Because it used to be better" is not much of an informative argument.

[Phil]

I would love to see hockey return to areas like Winnipeg, Quebec, Hartford, but a 20-team league is best, and I feel of the 20-teams I left alone they deserve to keep their teams (this is assuming devils fans would go to games in a closer arena)

Winnipeg never deserved to lose it's team in the first place...

what other team's fans raised enough money (on their own initiative) to keep the team in town for another whole year?

...and add this? to the growing pile of rumours that are music to my ears.

[JQK]

if the Penguins move, they'll need a namechange. Penguins is synonymous with Pittsburgh. If they pie, the name should die there, and they should revive the Jets name if, in fact, they move to Winnipeg.

[CC97]

if the Penguins move, they'll need a namechange. Penguins is synonymous with Pittsburgh. If they pie, the name should die there, and they should revive the Jets name if, in fact, they move to Winnipeg.

I agree again  

Phil, I didn't say Winnipeg didn't deserve their team (maybe it sounded that way) what I meant was of the remaining teams left, I didn't feel like I should relocate them to Wpg because their fans support the team, and shouldn't lose their team.

Now Pittsburgh is in serious jeopardy... again.  I recall after the Leafs eliminated them in 1999 we thought we just watched the final Penguins game ever, now it seems this time it'll happen for sure.

9,000 fans at their game a couple of nights ago, not good.

[yh]

To think that the Pens could be gone after this year just makes me sad.  I know business is business, hell, I'm the guy who usually injects the business angle into a lot of these threads, but still in all, they are one of the Blues' expansion brethren and it will be sad to see them go, just like the Seals and Northstars.  That leaves the Kings, Flyers and Blues as the only true remnants of the "Second Six."

[NJTank]

Penguins is such a great name for a hockey team I know I usually wnat teams to change names when they move, but it would be heartbreaking if their is no longer a team in the NHL named Penguins, theyr logo is classic and it will be like erasing those 2 Cups from 1991 and 1992.